If TPP Is So Important, Why Are Those It's Supposed To 'Help' Fighting Against It?

from the because-it's-not-about-helping-them dept

The USTR's position on trade agreements is incredibly antiquated. It acts as if it's an extension of "American business" and seems to believe that the only ones fighting against its various trade agreements, like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) are these meddling "public interest" groups, which don't understand the importance of big business. It's why the USTR recently created a special "public interest" committee to pretend that it was listening to criticism while shunting them off to their own little corner to be ignored.

But the real problem is that the USTR doesn't pay much attention to actual innovative business: entrepreneurs and startups that are doing much of the important work today that will be important for the future. Instead, they tend to only listen to the last generation of companies: the legacy players and behemoths who are looking to protect themselves against competition and innovation. So it was great to see during this week's TPP negotiations (though held in even more secrecy than usual) the EFF presented negotiators with two important letters about different aspects of the TPP, signed by the organizations that the USTR would like to pretend its helping -- and yet those organizations are not at all happy about it.

The first letter, signed by dozens of internet and technology companies, warns about dangerous intermediary liability concerns based on the leaked draft of the TPP's intellectual property section. We were among those that signed this letter. We'd prefer to comment on the actual draft of what's in the document, but the USTR still keeps that as a closely held secret (unless you happen to be an RIAA lobbyist, then you have full access).

The provisions regarding intermediary liability are particularly concerning. We are worried about language that would force service providers throughout the region to monitor and police their users' actions on the internet, pass on automated takedown notices, block websites and disconnect Internet users. Irresponsible righsholders can burden intermediaries with many thousands of automated takedown requests every day, using systems that operate with little or no human oversight. These systems rely on a "takedown first and ask questions later" approach to pages and content alleged to breach copyright.

Burdening these service providers with these new liabilities could also add new costs that may be passed onto Internet users. These automated systems have also led to many forms of legitimate speech being taken down, even when they are protected under fair use... We oppose any kind of proposal for an enforcement regime that could lead to a "notice and staydown" system, where there is little to no recourse for users to challenge takedowns and restore removed content.

The second letter comes from a large group of libraries, public archives, authors and educators, decrying the possibility of copyright term extension being enabled by the TPP. It's hard to argue that librarians and public archivists are "freetards" and "digital anarchists." These are folks who are legitimately concerned about the impact of excessive copyright on knowledge.

The public domain provides an immense social and economic benefit to all sectors of society. Through the public domain, in conjunction with today's affordable communications technologies and networks, access to knowledge is available to even the most impoverished members of the community. The public domain also spurs the creation of popular and valuable new derivative works, both commercial and non-commercial. For example, the spate of recent Sherlock Holmes spin-offs was made possible by the passage of that property into the public domain, as recently affirmed by a US court decision.

The most immediate threat to this invaluable resource would be the extension of copyright terms by another 20 years, adding to the TRIPS minimum term generally of life plus 50 years. Despite wide divergence on other issues, almost all contemporary economists are in agreement that copyright term extension makes no sense.

One would hope that the USTR is actually willing to listen to these organizations most directly impacted by the rules it's trying to force in through the backdoor known as international trade agreements. Unfortunately, it often seems tuned only to the voices of legacy industries looking for greater protectionism. Still, the more that organizations speak up, the more the USTR may finally be forced to listen. The EFF is still allowing more companies and organizations to sign onto both letters. You can do so on the intermediary liability letter or the copyright term extension letter at each of those links.

perhaps

I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?

Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it.

The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely. I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in.

Re: perhaps

Unfortunately, copyright probably should be completely torn down at this point. Even Derek Khanna cautions against throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it doesn't seem to do anyone any good anymore. It just encourages people to bicker and squabble with each other, and all the arguing that ensues results in everyone being held back. It's only useful in theory; the evidence that it has any practical use or value has long since been lost in an ocean of abuse. It's an obsolete invention, like the typewriter.

Re: perhaps

I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?Then fucking prove it. Put it in the open. Negotiate in public.

Re: Re: perhaps

Re: perhaps

"I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks,"

So is this an admission that the leaks do contain information that makes these negotiations undesirable?

"fear mongering blogs,"

Oh come on. No one has done more fear mongering than IP extremists who kept insisting that infringement is going to destroy art and innovation and that every new technology that comes out is going to be the bane of society. The current state of IP law is already a fearsome nightmare and when selected industry interests are invited to a policy agreement that everyone else is excluded from it's not hard to imagine that the intent is only make things worse.

"and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP."

Those others aren't even being allowed to view the documents. This is supposed to be a democracy where everyone participates. Yet the public is being excluded and the only ones being included are those that buy and pay for politicians and provide them the most in campaign contributions and revolving door favors.

The only 'logic' here is that the government knows what they are doing is wrong and it's very obvious that the system is a result of corruption. There is no other logic and the assertion that there is any legitimacy behind what the government is doing here is indefensible. There is no logic behind it and you should not be defending what is happening here. and if you had any moral conscience whatsoever you would not be here trying to defend the indefensible and morally wrong actions of what's going on here.

"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."

This shouldn't be about which companies work well and which ones work poorly within a regulatory framework. It should be about passing laws that serve the public interest. I have no problems with laws that prevent fraud. I do, however, have a problem with bought and paid for laws that (retroactively) extent copy protection lengths beyond anything even remotely reasonable depriving the public of the benefits of having a decent public domain. I have a problem with laws being bought and paid for by and intended for certain business interests with no regard for the public interest.

"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely. I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."

There are many other valid concerns. IP law has taken down and restricted perfectly good services like Megaupload (and others) for no good reason other than the fact that incumbent businesses do not want to compete in a free market. The penalty structure is so one sided that legitimate works get taken down and those that take it down are not sufficiently punished yet the potential penalties for infringement are outrageous. They have managed to deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying a parasite middleman a fee. Govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies are partly intended to prevent independents from gaining recognition without going through a parasite middleman. The whole system, outside the Internet, is very clearly rigged and it's not just a matter that incumbent middlemen want to stop piracy but they want to stop all competition period. They don't want people to be able to massively distribute a competing product without going through them first.

The concern is that the laws are clearly bought and paid for (95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions, secretive meetings with only industry interests invited, etc...) yet there is no attempt to fix the laws and instead the corporate bought government is only seeking to move them in the opposite direction. and the only reasonable explanation for why anyone would defend this atrocity is that they're a shill with no moral conscience.

what is actually happening is that certain big businesses are trying to turn the planet into a giant corporation, run by the USA for the USA and fuck everyone else!! these so-called trade deals and the ever worsening copyright laws are being used as weapons against those who stand in the way and being done purposefully in secret! the biggest section of any country is the public and they are specifically left out so big business can omit any protections for them whilst at the same time monetizing every single thing they can think of. if these USA induced deals keep going on with the threats and sanctions laid against countries that dont do as the USA dictates, there will be absolutely no privacy, no freedom of speech, nothing! we are heading towards a very real and grim future introduced by one nation in particular that has always seen itself as a pillar of democracy. no more is that title valid! what is equally as sad as that demise of democracy is the gutless fuckers leading this charge against the freedoms that millions died for to get and keep, not being willing to show themselves and admit to what is going on!!

Re: Re: perhaps

Re: perhaps

"I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?"

Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.

"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."

Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.

"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."

We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.

"I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."

I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.

Re: Re: perhaps

The only 'logic' here is that the government knows what they are doing is wrong and it's very obvious that the system is a result of corruption.

I think you give most politicians too much credit here. It's not corruption that makes the political world go around, it's self-perpetuation. The system (all systems) are set up to maximize the government's ability to control industry in a manner that generates tax revenue, jobs, and generally makes the politicians look good.

Politicians and rights holders stand on the same side because they generally have the same goals: income. After that, the greasing of the wheels is more of a mutual back scratching between comrades in arms rather than any grand scale of corruption.

They don't want people to be able to massively distribute a competing product without going through them first.

Actually nobody really cares if you want to distribute a competing product. They don't want you distributing THEIR product. I know this difference may be lost on you, but it is significant.

Want to make you own movie? Knock yourself out. NOBODY WILL STOP YOU. Want to make your computer game, app, whatever? Nobody will stop you. However, don't use other people's stuff and claim it as your own.

How do you fix copyright without significantly harming the rights of those who create? Everyone points to the Mickey Mouse extensions, yet few want to admit that Disney continues to use, perpetuate, and update their works and keeps them actively available to the public. They don't want to mention that Disney works to update, maintain, and keep content up to date with current technology and distribution methods. Copyright is equally inflexible in their direction.

why anyone would defend this atrocity is that they're a shill with no moral conscience.

Far from it. If anything, a culture that steals anything that isn't nailed down has problems with morals. It's actually pretty much what is killing the western world now, the sheer lack of respect for others and moral self control. I don't mean online, I mean in general. From graffiti all over other people's properties to more general crime, the current "culture" is one of self-importance and disrespect to the nth degree. It's not surprising to see that generation be against copyright or anything else that stands in their way of getting to the feeding through.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

I think you'll find that if you treat people with a little more courtesy, especially those who you consider your enemies, you'll find that people will be nice in return and that we don't actually live in a culture that steals anything that isn't nailed down. It's always up to you to make the first move though. Set a good example.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

"I think you give most politicians too much credit here. It's not corruption that makes the political world go around, it's self-perpetuation. The system (all systems) are set up to maximize the government's ability to control industry in a manner that generates tax revenue, jobs, and generally makes the politicians look good."

The system is set up to maximize the politician's ability to receive back door dealings that are personally favorable to them. It's set up to benefit those that provide politicians with campaign contributions and revolving door favors. That's not about serving the public interest. It's about corruption.

"Politicians and rights holders stand on the same side because they generally have the same goals: income. After that, the greasing of the wheels is more of a mutual back scratching between comrades in arms rather than any grand scale of corruption."

It's corruption because the politicians aren't acting in the public interest but they are acting in their best personal interest. That's corruption. It may not meet your dishonest definition of the word but it is still corruption and dishonesty. Politicians are supposed to serve the public interest. They know this. For them to put their personal interests ahead of the public interest is being intentionally dishonest.

"Actually nobody really cares if you want to distribute a competing product. They don't want you distributing THEIR product. I know this difference may be lost on you, but it is significant."

They do care. Competing products cut into their revenue and they care. and they most certainly act like it because their efforts are intended to stop competing products from being able to compete. Outside of the Internet they have accomplished this.

This absolutely is about stopping any competition and ensuring a legal system intent on scamming artists. They don't care about artists or the public. Only the parasite middlemen that contribute nothing.

"From graffiti all over other people's properties to more general crime, the current "culture" is one of self-importance and disrespect to the nth degree."

First of all crime rates have been going down. Secondly graffiti is partly a result of turf wars among rival gangs. One gang writes their name on the wall to indicate that only they can sell drugs here. Another gang crosses out the first name and writes their own. Much of this is simply an artifact of government and the war on drugs.

"It's not surprising to see that generation be against copyright or anything else that stands in their way of getting to the feeding through."

IP law has only been expanding. So apparently previous generations were doing just fine without having the expanded laws we currently have. The founding fathers were very skeptical of IP laws and sought to limit them.

It's the over expansion of these laws and the fact that they are self serving laws that has made them lose lots of respect.

But what makes you the ultimate authority of morality to determine for us that self serving IP laws are somehow good and anyone that disagrees with them is part of a corrupt generation? Like I'm supposed to believe that corporate bought laws are somehow supposed to be in the public interest. Or I'm supposed to take the opinion of a morally bankrupt person like yourself seriously.

Re: perhaps

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

What first move would you suggest? What can I do as a person that would make it better?

I treat people not just with courtesy, but I also treat them as they treat me. It's a group thing.

Something significant happened to the world back in the 60s, where people decided that they would have less respect for others and do more for themselves. The 70s gave way to the go go 80s and the greedy 90s, and slowly but surely the world has turned into a wild "grab as much pie as you can" contest, with no consideration for anyone else.

When the discussion starts with "I do it because I can" you know it's pretty much headed to the gutter, because that mentality leaves no space to consider the impact on others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

First of all, drop that group think. If someone mistreats you and you mistreat them back, guess what? You've become the same kind of scum that they are. Be a bigger man than that.

Your claim that you treat people with courtesy is betrayed by how you antagonize the people you get into debates with. I see you slipping all sorts of little jabs and insults into your posts and you do not try to make peace with the people who oppose you. You don't try as hard as you think you do to understand them and consider whether any of their points are good so that you might all discover a bigger truth together. You may tell yourself that you're better than a lot of other people who have come around here, but being good isn't about being in competition with others. In fact, thinking you are better than the other guy opens you up to becoming a worse person because it gives you an excuse to stop regulating yourself.

Also remember that if you focus on argument topics first and people second, then the former won't matter because you won't be able to reach the latter. It's always people first, topics second. If you don't secure the former, you won't have an audience, so what difference will the rest make?

It might help if you stop and ask yourself why you debate in the first place. Do you want to be effective and try to enlighten people, or do you just want to preach even if no one is listening?

CHALLENGE(s) to The TP Partnership, NOTIFICATION; JAPAN

Prime Minister Shinzō Abe (Japan);How are you coming along with your responses, & those of corporate Japan,to the potential signatories to the TPPartnership re; "NOTIFICATION ofPreexisting CHALLENGE(s) to The TP Partnership, et al?If there is anything else that you would like me to share with the 95% - 99% ofthose Japanese citizens, who will have to pay even morefor the TPP tribunal's, et al, penalties & damages by way of further cuts toprograms, services, et al, then do not hesitate to contact me at the addressthat I have previously provided to you, et al, c/o Prime Minister Harper.Sincerely,David E.H. Smith- Researcher- “Qui tam..."By the way, how long ago were you served?cc.

**********Re;YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with;"NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE(s) to The TP Partnership, et al .

It may be regrettable that I am serving you with:"The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP)",et al,but, due to the corporate Canada's inability, &/or, lack of willingness to answersome of the most basic questions regarding:1) the inter relationships between the basis of The Compensation that embodied in The W.A.D.Accordandthe Trans Pacific Partnership, ie. how much are corporate Japan, its shareholders,your people going to have to pay into The Compensationand2) the uncertainty caused by the secret mechanisms for investigating, adjudicating &penalizing the non shareholders for the abuses, arrangements, et al,of the Trans Pacific Partnership by corporate Canada, et al,the serving of theNotification to you & the people of Japan, has become necessary.

Please see the enclosed copy of "The Notification" that Canada's Prime MinisterHarper (& the attached article including references & themeans to access more information) has been served with.

Having said that, I think that you may agree with me that you & I may be able to take thisopportunity to ensure that corporate Canada's latest attempts, by way of all of the politicalparties that are operating in Canada, to "suck up"* to corporate Japan, the "coveted"Hong Kong investor, et al,andto make the government of Japan, et al, beholden to corporate Canada by way of thedevelopment of the natural resources that are being found in Canada,will not prevail.

By way of closing, I amlooking forward to reading about your questions about & yourimprovements to, etc. The Trans Pacific Partnership that would enableall of the people of both; Canada (including the 95% - 99% Native &non Native Canadians who are non shareholders) & Japan to obtain the direct cash benefits that can be derivedfrom the development of Canada's natural resources & over a muchlonger period of time, particularly in the area of theco-manufacturing of the aforementioned resources & the financingof the projects & their infrastructures.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith- Researcher- "Qui tam...".

*"suck up"; Who is the "coveted" Hong Kong investor who said:

"It's not that we are racists when it comes to dealing with Canadians,it's just that we can't stand the way that you suck up to us."?************PM HARPER; YOU'VE Been SERVED with; "NOTIFICATION of PreexistingCHALLENGE to the TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP, the C-CITreaty (FIPPA) & the CETAgrement"David Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, BC., CANADA. V8L 2C8.

I do not mean to rude, but, please do NOT thank me for any interest that I may, or,may NOT have regarding the existing, un ratified Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP),Canada - China Investment Treaty C-CIT; FIPA)& the Canada - EU Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA);I am just doing my due diligence research which will enable me, et al, to ascertainwhether to support, improve, or, reject the Treaty, Agreement, &/or, Partnership.

However, as a consequence of your not answering the simplest & most basic questions regarding:1) the basis for The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord (a.k.a.; The Australian Question)andthe lack of certainty regarding the proportions that corporates: Canada, China &European Union will pay for total amount of The Compensation that is embodied inThe W.A.D. Accord as a consequence of the C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada - EU C.E.T. Agreementand2) the lack of certainty regarding corporates: Canada, China, European Union &the trans Pacific nations agreements to pay for total amount of the costs ofthe punitive penalties, damages, costs, administrative, legal fees, etc. that may ariseas a consequences of:A) the CHALLENGES to the TP Partnership, the C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada - EU C.E.T. Agreement,B) the costs of the on-going research & dissemination of the information regardingthe C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada - EU C.E.T. Agreement to all of the parties that haveexpressed an interest in the development of the natural resources that have been found,& are continuing to be found, in Canada & thereby, render the non shareholders, et al,of the enterprises that can be derived from the aforementioned Treaty, &/or, Agreement,harmless& thereby,prevent any abuses of the aforementioned costs, such as, using to the costs ofThe Challenges to increase the "profits" of the shareholders & the relevant corporations,please be advised that;YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with:"NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP","NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINAINVESTMENT TREATY"and"NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA - EUROPEAN UNIONCOMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC & TRADE AGREEMENT".

Do you also understand that by not answering the aforementioned simple & mostbasic questions it will be an admission of guilt and will enhance the punitive damagesawarded to non shareholders if, &/or, when the aforementioned Treaty, &/or,the Agreement have been ratified?

Would you please acknowledge that you have received the aforementioned C-CIT &CETA notifications?

Do you, Misters Harper, Hilton & Fast acknowledge that you have received the enclosedC-CIT & CETA notifications & the relevant references* in order to access the lesscomprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord, including The Compensation?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith- Researcher;- "Qui tam...".

cc.

P.S. - Did you not get my emails regarding the aforementioned "NOTIFICATIONs", or,is there something wrong with your email addresses? Do you suggest that wecorrespond by registered mail?

*Reference:For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments,The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

Re: perhaps

I like the full circle in this comment. It starts with blaming fear mongering blogs and ends in quite some stretched logic against valid concerns turning into a total nuking of the system. Something you fear I presume?

Look at the specificity of the concerns and see that even if these are lobbying texts, they have substance. It is not only because of fearmongering these companies raise the specific concerns since it has been generally accepted logical stances for years.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Generally that is what I do. I don't want to get into a personal debate with people about ourselves, I am here for the issues. Sadly, there are a few posters here intent on making it about me and not about the ideas, and thus it degrades. You will notice I have turned down Paul's attempts to engage me repeatedly this week. Go look and see who is call who a "liar" and you can see which way it goes. Perhaps you can take that up with him, I am all for civil discourse.

However, I also don't tend to be a doormat. There is a limit.

I think if you go back to my original post in this thread, you can see it's about ideas and not people. However, some choose to make it personal, calling me a shill and such. They didn't debate ideas, they tried to debate me as a person. That is a fail. Again, perhaps you should take it up with them.

It might help if you stop and ask yourself why you debate in the first place.

I often post here because many of the stories have a lot of space for an opposite and equally viable opinion or answer. There are logical explanations for many things, there are reasons why things happen in the way they do. There seems to be a general glossing over of the idea that the laws are different from country to country, and just putting "on the internet" or "with new technology" on the end of something doesn't suddenly make the law disappear.

You don't learn anything debating with people who agree with you. So it's better to be in a place where people see things differently, there is much to learn. I can only hope that sometimes they pay equal attention to opposing or different views.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Everyone points to the Mickey Mouse extensions, yet few want to admit that Disney continues to use, perpetuate, and update their works and keeps them actively available to the public.

Disney is actually famous for putting movies in the infamous "Disney Vault" so that the public can no longer buy them. It's a crazy process by which Disney deliberately starves the market of the movies they would like to buy. So, basically, the exact opposite of what you claim.

"When you stop and think about it, the "Disney Vault" is every bit as sinister as its histrionic name implies. According to doctrine, Disney's policy of releasing its most sought-after classics for a limited period only, before withdrawing them for years at a time.... Initially, Disney was reluctant to release its back catalogue on home video at all, hoping instead to continue the lucrative practice of reissuing its best-loved films theatrically every seven years. The 1980s VHS boom put paid to that idea, but the corporation has since moved across newer formats in such a way that ensures its properties remain elusive. Disney films typically last only a year or two on Netflix before they disappear, and their availability varies widely by region."

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

"How do you fix copyright without significantly harming the rights of those who create?"

This is arguably the strongest reason I want IP laws abolished completely. IP laws should never be about the 'rights of those who create' they should only be about serving the public interest. IP holders are not entitled to anything the government gives them and IP law is something the government provides them. That the likes of you have perverted their intent into something other than the public interest is very good reason to abolish IP laws completely.

"Everyone points to the Mickey Mouse extensions, yet few want to admit that Disney continues to use, perpetuate, and update their works and keeps them actively available to the public."

Despite the fact that this is an exaggerated lie the extent that Disney continues to use something is no reason to continue to restrict its use by others. The public should not be at the mercy of Disney to decide the extent that the public and future generations can use and share (the) culture (of the past). Disney is free to continue to use and perpetuate public domain works if they wish but they have no right to prevent those works from being public domain (or to even have copy protection laws to begin with). Those works should be in the public domain after some reasonable period of time (I say no more than 7 years) and if that really means Disney won't continue to perpetuate the work I have no problems with that. Their refusal to continue to do so is only because others are already filling that niche (otherwise the effect is the same as though the protection still exists). If there is a real niche that only they can fulfill because no one else is filling it then the market will naturally decide this and they will naturally decide to do so and profit. If not then the problem is that Disney needs to find ways to make itself relevant in the face of competitors that are better filling the niche.

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Every time and IP extremist works under the assumption that creators are somehow entitled to 'rights' and that they should have these 'rights' and IP law should be about protecting their 'rights' that they are entitled to they are being dishonest. They know better. No one is entitled to anything the government provides them an IP laws are something the government provides. and when they continue to be dishonest over and over and over (and it's not like this is a mistake, this has been explained to them over and over so they have no excuses to not know by now) it makes it very difficult for anyone to take their moral arguments seriously. Why should I take the opinion of an intellectually dishonest person seriously?

IP laws should not be about the 'rights of the creator'. Stop repeating this lie, it only makes you look more dishonest. They should only be about the public interest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

I think if you go back to my original post in this thread, you can see it's about ideas and not people.

Yeah, that's the whole problem. It should be people first, ideas second. You can't wade into these debates without going in caring about the people you'll be debating as people.

I often post here because many of the stories have a lot of space for an opposite and equally viable opinion or answer.

Are you saying that you're mainly contrary for the sake of being contrary? No wonder your points tend to go over like a lead balloon.

The main thing you'll find around here is that the commenters are interested in the rights of people and the public above everything else. That's why you end up at odds with them all the time. They probably should be as well, as we live in an era where corporations are showing the same sort of desperation people show when there's little food or water, so whenever you try to argue for that side, you're essentially coming off as being against the betterment of humanity. You should probably clear that up if you don't mean to seem that way.

Sometimes there is glossing over of laws too, but that's because laws are not absolute. They can be changed, and there is just a thing as bad laws just like how there are bad scientists, bad Christians, etc. Calling something a law does not end the discussion, and if you think it does, you're the one who's shortsighted, not your opponent.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Well, a higher power does, ultimately, tend to be what it freaking takes in order to make people behave, but that is rather sensationalist of PRMan. Furthermore, I'm not sure that things were necessarily better in the 60's. I think the same old evils were still around, and if anything, people were generally more oblivious to them or they did a better job at hiding.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

If someone's only a decent person because they think a 'higher power' is watching them, and/or there might be a penalty for acting bad, then they're a pretty lousy/terrible person.

I think the same old evils were still around, and if anything, people were generally more oblivious to them or they did a better job at hiding.

Pretty much. Back then, if it wasn't happening in the town/city you were in, wasn't on the news, or wasn't written about in the paper, it effectively didn't happen, because you had no way of knowing about it.

With the spread of the internet and increased ease of communication though, what was 'hidden' before is now just a click or two away, making things seem worse even if the levels are the same or even less.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

It's about people but it's not about being personal. Don't confuse thinking of people as an excuse for ad hom attacks. I mean, look at the post below yours, someone basically makes a personal attack on me and lies about my posts to get a rise out of me. They won't get the pleasure.

Are you saying that you're mainly contrary for the sake of being contrary?

I don't think I am being contrary just to be contrary, there are many stories here that I don't common on because I generally agree and there isn't much to add - why bother just repeating what was in the post, right? There are a number of stories and story arcs here that are more troubling, presented in a very one sided fashion that obviously plays well to the faithful, but certainly doesn't give the whole story or delve into the reasons why something is the way it is.

I think the biggest issue is that too many people seem to forget that the other side is really just people too. As much as you pull for the rights of people, you have to remember that you are pulling them away from other people as well. It's why I often feel like it's a very self-justifying, self-indulgent tone that ruins many of the stories that might be interesting otherwise.

Sometimes there is glossing over of laws too, but that's because laws are not absolute.

Of course they are not absolute. However, in most democracies, there are methods to change those rules. There is protest and civil disobedience for sure, but they are not the only weapons. Guys like Lessig trying to starting a PAC is enough to tell you that even he has figured it out, and he's been pretty stubborn about things. Bad laws are changed not just by standing in the road and screaming, but also in working the process.

Just ignoring them often ends up benefiting one side while harming others who are following the law. There are reasons why we have laws, they generally are not to create barriers to entry, although some do have that result. Making the assumption that every licensing or legal system is a barrier to entry issue is a cop out, making a complex story simple.

Calling something a law does not end the discussion, and if you think it does, you're the one who's shortsighted, not your opponent.

Calling it a law is only a statement of fact, not an end to a discussion. You work to change laws by working with the system, not just ignoring it. You can see where that got Lyft in New York. They pretty much were determined to open by ignoring the laws, and instead backed down at the last minute when they realizes they were about to step in it. Now they are working WITH the system and with the laws to find a solution and perhaps define new services in a way that will allow them to operate, benefit the public, and not cause harm to anyone beyond what would be normal competition - and all in the name of public safety.

"technology allows it" is a common thread here, and that is the first step to ignoring the law. Getting uppity about NSA and then celebrating companies who ignore the law seems a little two faced, don't you think?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

It not just making things seem worse. I actually think that the real key to the internet (and for that matter national TV and cable channels) has been making marginal choices seem mainstream.

The internet is a place where anyone from necrophiliacs to Redd Foxx fans can find a group or a club to be part of, a website to relate to, or an weblog that speaks to them in some way. The result is what would have been considered marginal lifestyle choices come out as apparently acceptable and popular choices.

Put it this way: In the US, if each city with a population over 100,000 has 1 of something, then online they are hundreds... perhaps thousands of whatever they are. In their own cities and towns, their choice would not be encouraged and likely would die off. Online, there is a support group for everything.

What it also means is that you can have a website about a topic, and if you hit a reasonable group, you can mistake the ideas put forward as mainstream because enough people are agreeing with you.

The upshoot of this is things like The Tea Party movement. Left to their own devices, these "good minded citizens" would be such a small minority as to get ignored in most places. But they can scare up enough people to events that they appear to be something bigger than they are. Same thing goes for the Occupy movement. They bitched about the 1% yet the represented maybe 0.01% of the population themselves (which would be slightly more than 30,000 people). Add an extra 0.01 or 0.02% as soft supporters, and that is still 100k, more than enough to make anything look big and important. Yet, break the numbers down, and it's less than a handful of people at an NFL game.

Marginal thinking is now encourages and really marginal lifestyles supported. These days for the US it seems to be thug life. Everyone wants to be their own version of a hood rat, I guess. Everyone thinks they are above the law and whatever "for the people" cause they can tack on the back of their bad behavior justifies it. Stick it to the man!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Really, learn to read.

Good to see you debating ideas and not attacking people.

Either way, everyone can read the original for themselves and decide. I'd bet that most will recognize you are, in fact, defending the throwing of a flashbang at an infant. You can deny it, but your original words are clear.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

So then where is the even .1% of people protesting on the streets in support of SOPA and expanding IP laws? Against the occupy wall street protests? What, are they all too lazy to even protest? When it comes to supporters of these bills it seems to be a much much smaller percentage (mainly corporate interests and politicians that receive something in return from those corporations and astroturfing groups) than opponents. Yet a very small minority is supposed to decide everything for a much larger majority. I highly doubt the majority of the people are in favor of 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions. That's a result of a very very small minority doing the exact opposite of what's in the public interest just to serve self serving laws.

As for statistics polls are showing that a large percentage of people are not happy with our government and corporate influence.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

and if the majority are really in favor of stricter IP laws it would make sense for politicians to advertise their support of stricter IP laws when they run for office. It should get them more votes right? Yet they don't because they know very well such a campaign is a quick way to lose an election because such is not what the majority wants. Instead politicians run for office making all these promises that they know are popular among voters and when they get elected they do the exact opposite. If anything I remember Obama suggesting to remove the patent extensions that pharmaceutical corporations could apply for. Obama ran for office claiming he was going to improve government transparency (because he knows that's popular among the republic) yet he did nothing to improve transparency (and arguably even made it worse). Why didn't he run for office claiming he is going to make transparency worse if that's what the public wants?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

You missed the point again. It's not about "these bills", nobody is even talking about that. It's only pointing out that what seems like a huge movement these days is really perhaps not. The internet echo chamber tends to make narrow but loud points of view seem more common than they really are.

The rest of you point is bait, and I won't touch it, it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Well, that is pretty much the bed you've made for yourself, so you have to sleep in it. Not saying that the person using personal attacks is right, but you really do bring this out on yourself, and you seem unable to understand why. You seem very much like a robot, actually. I've met people like you before who think the facts are on their side simply because they've failed to account for all the facts in play.

I don't think I am being contrary just to be contrary,

You'd be surprised how often that kind of statement supports the denied accusation. If you were sincerely not acting like that, you would have said something like, "I don't mean to sound contrary just for the sake of being contrary and I really am sorry if I've come across that way."

I think the biggest issue is that too many people seem to forget that the other side is really just people too.

Fair enough. Now, what kind of people are they? Are they the sort of people who are already well off, or are they the sort who are needy and oppressed like most of the general public has been becoming? One of those groups generally does have a responsibility to help the other.

As much as you pull for the rights of people, you have to remember that you are pulling them away from other people as well.

But you should remember that sometimes that's exactly how it should be. ALL leaders must live up to higher standards than their subjects, whether they're corporate owners, political leaders, or the head of a family, and that often means restricting them in various ways at the very least so that the next person who comes into power won't be able to ruin what everyone else who held his or her position spent their lives and careers building.

I don't have much to say about your comments about laws. I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I do kinda agree with it, but you seem to use a lot of words to say relatively little.

Getting uppity about NSA and then celebrating companies who ignore the law seems a little two faced, don't you think?

Not at all, actually. You're forgetting about the responsibilities of leadership when you say that. Sometimes double standards exist because they are part of a hierarchy, so they have a darn good reason for existing. It's a case where Tropes Are Not Bad.

There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals.

1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders&ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuseandto protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in order to limit the scope of the "opposition" to manageable issues that can be compromised in order that "opposing" parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their constituents. Under this arrangement both, the politicians & the lobbyists' clients are protected from scrutiny by the role of the parties' executives.

2) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to reveal to the each others' corporate sponsors their existing arrangements that it has with its own government & thus, each counties' corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the benefits & considerations (& future considerations) that they receive from their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers. Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.

3) To Protect the parties to one treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the "original" treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to third parties the nature, &/or, details of their "original" arrangements to other third parties who may want to enter into a treaty, &/or, agreement with either of the parties to the "original" agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring & having privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or, agreements will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than the original treaty/agreement. For example; "You did this with them, so I insist upon more, or, I'll deal with them, or, others". The European Union is particularly interested in preventing the Canada - European Union CETA from becoming divisive whereby individual EU member countries may be enticed, &/or, coreced into making preferential, but, "very secretive" side deals with corporate Canada, et al.

By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals' secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the increase in the value of the shareholders' stocks & dividends is insider trading & stock manipulation...

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Disney's policy of releasing its most sought-after classics for a limited period only, before withdrawing them for years at a time....

When the re-release them (and they always do) they are generally in an updated version, with current technology applied to them. Their system of distribution does not deprive anyone of the copies they have already purchased, and the "vault" time is generally time spent on renewing and updating the product to the current standards.

Their re-release system makes perfect sense, as Disney tends to appeal to a certain age group. The works themselves are nearly timeless and generally were able to a long period of time to be released and become interesting for a new group of children.

Do you deny them their rights because they actively manage their works, maintain them, update them, and re-release them?

There are plenty of works under copyright that are just not available at all. Disney curates and takes care of their products like the valuable works and cultural items that they are, and we all benefit. Showing your children some of the Disney classics is a part of almost every child's life growing up, plain and simple. Giving them a hard time because they actually care to maintain and support their own work is pretty mean spirited. It's also likely if (as the other anonymous suggested) that they only get 7 years or whatever copyright, that the works would either not exist or would not be cared for, and would end up like almost every other product of it's era, forgotten because nobody cared.

Re: Re: perhaps

We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.

I think you managed to get every angry, emotional, and biased term in a single sentence. That may get you a gold star from the techdirt readers who will likely upvote you to next weeks best post, but it doesn't say much.

If you don't like the game, stop dealing with them. Their power exists only because you buy, you consumer, you watch, you listen, you justify their continued existence. Even in piracy, you support them by making product placement valuable. All the nasty words and name calling won't change a thing, because in the end most people enjoy it and consumer it on a daily basis. Nobody else can change that except you on an individual case basis.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Here's what you don't seem to get. Blocking sites people don't use and punishing them by jacking up entertainment prices is not going to get people to buy. Because you don't understand this, your side constantly insists that more laws, more penalties, more restrictions are needed.

If that's not what you believe in, then I'm sorry to say that you're being used for causes you don't believe in.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

The "reporting" of this comment by certain persons frequenting this comments section is to me quite troublesome. Again it shows to me the intolerance of those here who loudly proclaim they are the most tolerant of all.

You make a fair point. Too bad such "reporters" seem unable to grasp it and present relevant counter arguments in a respectful manner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Blocking sites people don't use and punishing them by jacking up entertainment prices is not going to get people to buy

Do you see what you did? You made a comment about you considering your own actions into a rant against what others do. if you don't consumer, if you don't use, if you don't take part, and if you don't enjoy the stuff, then all the price rising and law making won't change your life one iota, because you won't be using anything in their way of doing it.

Your choice. You can walk away or tilt at windmills. But rather than trying to blame everyone else, consider your own actions first.

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

The "reporting" of this comment by certain persons frequenting this comments section is to me quite troublesome.

Why?

Again it shows to me the intolerance of those here who loudly proclaim they are the most tolerant of all.

How so? Look at Whatever's comment history. It becomes immediately clear that he's trolling. Every single post is contrary to whatever Techdirt says, even taking it to ridiculous extremes. He claims that the DMCA has a notice-and-notice provision (it does not). He claims that he didn't defend flashbanging an infant (he did).

If his comments get voted down, it's because he's *well earned* the reputation as a troll. I suspect he's the same troll who has been around forever, once known as "TAM" or "The Anti-Mike" who has also gone in other forms, such as Weird Harold, No Name, and "the lowercase troll." His phrasing is identical and his trolling techniques are identical. He's either the same or comes from the same school of trolling.

You make a fair point. Too bad such "reporters" seem unable to grasp it and present relevant counter arguments in a respectful manner.

He did not make a fair point. It's a point designed to LOOK reasonable for those who don't study the issue, so that he can pretend to be the reasonable one.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

1. you are full of shit, period2. you do NOT engage in debates, you repeat your same BS over and over..3. you did NOT respond to ANY of the posts in the link mentioned about the baby who was flashbanged to ANYONE, even those other than myself who didn't call you a giant POS...(virtually everything i see you right only confirms it)4. you CONSTANTLY appeal to authoritarian 'arguments' rather than actual logic and reason; you are authoritarian through and through, and so much so, you refuse to even acknowledge it...5. you don't give a shit about HUMAN BEINGS, the only thing you care about is the trains running on time...6. prissy pricks like you who go on about 'civility' and such as the 'reason' you don't respond to posts is pure chickenshit cowardice and bullshit: YOU EITHER CAN'T OR DON'T WANT TO, but it ISN'T 'cause someone (Rightfully) called you a doo-doo head...you are worthless as a debater: AUTHORITARIANISM on a stick is ALL you have to offer...

Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

People who don't pirate or consume will still need to do things like use mobile phones for communication or purchase blank media to transfer files at work or home videos.

Vested interests in the entertainment industry, however, consistently call for more levies and taxes to be placed on these things because of the bogeyman risk of piracy, regardless of whether it happens.

So no, it won't not "change your life one iota", because the industry regularly attempts dragging everyone down with it. But here you are, fighting for the right of a select group of people to blame everyone else. And to think you keep insisting you don't have a side.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Yes, and you fight those by making sure that you opt out of programs or offers from your phone company, such as "free" music (which is never really free anyway).

Some of it is unavoidable. It's sort of like trying to be a vegan in a meat eating world. It requires a fair bit of effort to make your personal choices work in a world that doesn't support them, but clearly it can be done.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

How is me opting out of free music programs on my mobile phone - which I have done - stopping artists who believe that they should get a cut of all mobile phone sales because they believe all mobile phones contribute to music piracy?

Are you going to answer that point or does your argument state that we should all roll over?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

There is a point where you must protest, and you must work to get the laws changed. Programs that charge a tax on devices to pay for the piracy of others are generally a bad idea. You should work with your congress critter to try to get those changed.

Again, some things are unavoidable, and you can work to change them through the legal means. You do all you can to stay away from feeding the beast, and work to cut off it's other sources of financial support.

The "tax on phones" thing is such a small number compared to other things, why get hung up on the last 1% of things? Make a 99% change and you are far ahead of most.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

Except for the fact that in this case, cutting off the sources of financial support is cited as the phenomenon for which more is poured into its defense.

Your side has money to burn, and war of attrition is how they wear everybody out, which is why people are generally annoyed that there's jack all they can do. Not consuming culture cuts off the source of financial support, which is then used to further the claims that piracy has devastated the industry, for which more laws are demanded, and you'll be back here, whining about things like "if policemen were respected they wouldn't throw flashbangs at babies!" or "if pirates would pay pornographers wouldn't have to sue grandmothers without computers!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

News to me. My side is my personal bank account and my computer, probably about the same as your side. When you start trying to label me onto a team, you lose the discussion outright.

Except for the fact that in this case, cutting off the sources of financial support is cited as the phenomenon for which more is poured into its defense.

Incorrect, or at least very significantly lacking in detail. If they were losing market share and public awareness, exposure, and consumption, you would be correct. The issue is falling revenues in the face of the largest amount of consumption of the products ever. Everyone has an MP3 player full of music, but nowhere near that many people paid for the stuff. People watch movies all the time, but many of them watch pirated copies. TV shows are downloaded and viewed minus the commercials and other item that would generate revenue.

"you'll be back here, whining about things like "if policemen were respected they wouldn't throw flashbangs at babies!"

Why do you lie? trying to get a rise? you fail, and everyone here knows you are lying about me. Why do you lie?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perhaps

You posted in the other thread that lack of respect for police and authority has caused a climate that justifies excessive force. You've been proven to blame the public over figures of authority, every time.

Re: Re: Re: perhaps

The system (all systems) are set up to maximize the government's ability to control industry in a manner that generates tax revenue, jobs, and generally makes the politicians look good.

Then explain why the biggest players not only pay no tax, but get our tax dollars as kickbacks. This is why people assume you are little more than a talking head mouthing the words of paymasters. Your replies sound thoughtful, but often are full of outright propaganda.